Summary
This is a Decision and Order from the District Court of Guam screening a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court grants the petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, dismisses his motion to appoint counsel without prejudice, and reviews the substantive claims. After analyzing four alleged grounds for relief—including ineffective assistance of counsel, Brady violations, newly discovered evidence, and due process claims—the court dismisses three grounds without prejudice with leave to amend, while dismissing the fourth ground with prejudice as legally insufficient.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the petitioner sufficiently pleaded an ineffective‑assistance of counsel claim under Strickland.
- Whether the petitioner sufficiently pleaded a Brady violation claim.
- Whether the petitioner sufficiently pleaded an actual‑innocence claim based on newly discovered or newly reliable evidence.
- Whether the petitioner’s due‑process and equal‑protection claims constitute a cognizable habeas claim under 28 U.S.C. §2254.
Holdings
- The petition fails to state a plausible ineffective‑assistance claim and is dismissed with leave to amend.
- The petition fails to state a plausible Brady claim and is dismissed with leave to amend.
- The petition fails to state a plausible actual‑innocence claim and is dismissed with leave to amend.
- The petition does not independently challenge the conviction or sentence and is dismissed with prejudice.
Key quotations
“To adequately plead an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Petitioner must allege enough facts to support: (1) that his counsel’s actions were deficient, i.e., that those actions fell below “an objective standard of reasonableness”; and (2) that the deficient actions prejudiced his defense.”
“In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a prosecutor’s wrongful suppression of evidence favorable to an accused violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when such evidence was material to guilt or punishment.”
Factual background
In August 2015 the petitioner was sentenced in the Superior Court of Guam to fifteen years for two counts of criminal sexual conduct. He is incarcerated at the Guam Department of Corrections. The petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, Brady violations, newly discovered evidence, and due‑process/equal‑protection violations.
Procedural history
This is the petitioner's second habeas petition in this court. The prior petition (Civil Case No. 20-00027) was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. The petitioner appealed to the Guam Supreme Court and pursued three post‑conviction actions in the Superior Court of Guam before filing the present federal petition on April 4, 2024.
Remand instructions
Petitioner may amend Grounds One, Two, and Three to correct deficiencies; amendment must be filed no later than July 14, 2025. No amendment is permitted for Ground Four.